Part of man’s nature is that men exist as separate entities. The existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. This fact does not mean that there could be no benefit or advantage gained by men living in society. Ethics to be objective, demands that the principles on which they are based reflect the fact of man’s individuality. So the statement “a living human being is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” is stating an ethical principle in a negative form reflecting the fact that part of man’s nature is that men exist as separate entities.
tadmjones,
Your interpretation of the quote seems reasonable but I am still confused. Let us assume that Ms. Rand was stating a corollary of the fact that men exist as individuals and that there is no derivable principle of dependence between man qua man. If this is the case, then the language in the next part of the quote, “… and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing other to himself.” becomes confusing to me. If Ms. Rand was simply stating a fact, men exist as individual entities and their existence is not dependent on the existence of other individuals, then the quote should be, “… and, therefore, that man can live for his own sake …” The use of the word “must” in the quote implys that Ms. Rand is not simply stating a fact regarding men, rather, she is stating something that men are required, or must, do. The questions, just as in the original post, are what is the basis of this requirement or “must” and why is it correct?
was simply stating a fact, men exist as individual entities and their existence is not dependent on the existence of other individuals, then the quote should be, “… and, therefore, that man can live for his own sake …”
“Must” also means “can” in this context, but it carries heavier importance. In the paragraphs before it, about virtue, address pretty well the basis to why this is correct.
Given the context of an essay on the O’ist ethics, ‘can’ would mean is physically(existentially?) possible, and ‘must’ means is necessary, required. If an objective moral code can be derived by man and choosing to follow those ethics will lead to an individual’s happiness then one must follow the ethics, or it is necessary to follow the ethics in order to achieve happiness. If desired goal x is attained only by actions y, then one must perform y to attain x.
Assuming that we accept the premise that life is an end in itself based on the arguments that Ms. Rand laid out earlier in the essay, we can then agree with the first 28 words of the quote because every living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, therefore every living human being is an end in himself.
My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?
In order to understand what Miss Rand means by “end in itself” you should go back to the last paragraph on page 17 of the paperback where she uses it the first time – in your citation style I believe this is paragraph 24 though I’ll start the quotation below with paragraph 23:
An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its_standard of value_: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
So an “end in itself” is an “ultimate goal” – and the only things we know of that have goals or ends are living things – inanimate matter has no goals, it just is.
Now, the phenomenon of life is an abstraction, what exists in reality are living entities, in the case of higher animals and man, individuals. And each individual is an end in itself, each individual must attain the things that sustain its life, each individual’s life is its ultimate goal. Meaning that if that ultimate goal isn’t sustained its life ceases and it goes out of existence. It is a fact that an individual’s life is an end in itself: it goes out of existence without action generated by itself.
There are several things you must understand about Ayn Rand’s writing (really, any good writing). Just as each word logically follows from the words preceding it, so every sentence follows logically from the ones preceding it and each paragraph follows logically from the ones preceding it. That is why pulling a sentence or two out of a logically connected whole can sometimes be detrimental to your understanding and in an argument can leave you open to the charge of dropping context. When I read Ayn Rand and I am confronted with something I don’t understand, it is often the case that I can figure it out by rereading the previous one or two paragraphs.
Additionally it might be helpful for you to keep in mind the overall structure of the philosophy of Objectivism as Miss Rand’s arguments often mirror this structure: Starting with the metaphysical facts of reality from which ethical principles can be derived; going from what is to what one ought to do. A great tool for understanding this structure is Leonard Peikoff’s video lecture “Introduction to Objectivism” which you can watch here for free. It is an excellent lecture that I highly recommend.
And now, to get to your question, first let us provide context to your cited quote by quoting the previous paragraph:
The virtue of Pride is the recognition of the fact “that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.” (Atlas Shrugged.) The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term: “moral ambitiousness.” It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one’s own highest value by achieving one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.
So, starting at the beginning of the paragraph you quoted, what we are talking about here are social/ethical principles. Ethical principles aren’t just facts, they are normative statements, meaning that they take the form of if/then statements, either explicitly or implicitly (the “if” part is often absent but always implied) – they take the form: “If you want this certain outcome, then you must take this action”. Notice how the “must” I just stated mirrors the “must” in your quote, which also mirrors the “must” Ayn Rand uses in the first and third sentences of the preceding paragraph.
And we aren’t just talking about any old ethical principles, we are talking about Objectivist ethical principles, so the implied “if” is: “If you want to live”. So an Objectivist might say “you must eat” and what they mean is “if you want to live, then you must eat”. If one’s goal is something other than living, then the Objectivist ethics doesn’t necessarily apply.
Putting it all together we can interpret the paragraph that is giving you trouble. First, Miss Rand states the facts: life is an end in itself and every living human being is an end in himself, i.e., metaphysically, he must sustain his life, he must take action to further the end, which is himself. This necessarily implies that, metaphysically, he is not the means to the ends of others, i.e., feeding himself will not sustain someone else. Or more explicitly: feeding oneself doesn’t put food in another’s stomach. And, therefore, since these are facts, and since one cannot live by sacrificing himself to others, that he must not sacrifice himself to others if he wants to live according to the Objectivist ethics, which means: if he wants to live. (And to be consistent one can’t expect someone else to sacrifice themselves for you).
Further than that, ethics is about choice, we all must choose, according to our own judgment, how to live our lives and what actions to take. Therefore, if one wants to live according to the Objectivist ethics (which, again, means: if one wants to live), one must choose never to live by a standard other than life. Which means you must never accept an irrational, sacrificial code of morality. You must choose to live for your own sake and never feel guilty for doing so. And in order not to feel guilty, you must feel worthy (in your own mind) of putting yourself first. The way to feel worthy is by being virtuous, i.e., by choosing to take the actions that further your life and make you happy.
Hope that helps.
umm yeah what Marc K said too
Marc K,
Thank you for your post, I found it very interesting.
When you wrote, “… if/then statements … take the form: “If you want this certain outcome, then you must take this action” and “… the implied “if” is: “If you want to live”…” appear to provide some additional clarification to the quote from the original post.
Applying your explanation to the quote from the original post, it appears we can clarify it to read, “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that if man wants to live, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.”
However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it?
If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?
Sacrificing violates the non dependency principle.
It seems your line of argument is more about trying to find in Rand’s writing a semantic/linguistic trap , as opposed to not actually understanding the concepts involved, just a feeling.
However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it?
If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?
Because sacrificing THE OTHER to yourself prevents THE OTHER from living for his own sake. There are no double standards in Objectivism.
If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?
The answer, as I already stated and as Craig24 has just alluded to, is: logical consistency.
Unfortunately this answer is somehow not enough for some people, which simply astonishes me. If you are interested in a more thorough argument search for a thread entitled “Prudent Predator”.
However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it?
There are many things wrong with the ideas expressed here. First of all, Miss Rand never spoke or wrote in terms of “prohibitions”, that sounds too much like commandments, but yes, it most certainly would be wrong to sacrifice others to yourself. Have you read “Atlas Shrugged”? If not, and you are interested in Objectivism, you really should.
Secondly, you are being a bit hypocritical by saying that “one cannot make a definitive statement such as […]” and then following it up by saying “sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life”, which isn’t definitive at all. It is hard to tell what you are trying to communicate by using “necessarily” there. It could mean anything. But even if all you mean is that sometimes sacrificing others will end your life and sometimes it won’t, well that should be enough not to do it right there.
Thirdly, you have to discover what Objectivists (actually almost anyone you talk to) mean by “your life” or “man’s life”. We don’t just mean the bare minimum of living day to day as a subsistence farmer, avoiding the grave for as long as our muscles will hold out. We mean, and most people mean, a happy, flourishing, fruitful, creative, joyous, productive, love filled, life.
Hitler was alive and he sacrificed many people. Do you think he lived a happy, flourishing, fruitful, creative, joyous, productive, love filled, life?
To bring it back to “The Objectivist Ethics”, Ayn Rand does answer your question there you just have to tease it out by understanding the essay fully and grasping all of its implications.
The first part of the paper discusses “value” as that which one acts to gain or keep and in the second part of the paper Miss Rand discusses “virtue” as the action by which one gains and keeps it. She explains how and why rationality is the cardinal virtue since reason is our basic means of survival. She goes on to enumerate six other basic virtues which are really just different aspects of rationality in different contexts of life. They are: Independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. She explains how practicing these virtues are requirements for a happy life.
If you would sacrifice others to yourself could you consider yourself independent? You would be dependent on others. Could you have integrity if you didn’t live by the virtues you espouse? Are you being honest with yourself when what holds for you doesn’t hold for others? Is it just to treat others in a way that rationally different from the way you want to be treated? How productive can you be if you need to accept the sacrifices of others? Would you be proud to accept something from someone else knowing it is a sacrifice for them? Could you have any self-esteem knowing you are a hypocrite?
And to tad – 
This thread is an excellent discussion.
TJ,
Beyond the ways in which each individual organism of a species and indeed the species itself exists as a dynamic end in itself, wouldn’t the reason that individual people ought to be treated by others as ends in themselves be because their intelligence and psyche is organized towards being an individual dynamic whole? That would be Rand’s stress on the circumstance that only individual minds can think, and from there comes the way individuals of our species and indeed the species itself can continue their organic end-in-itself existence.
There is at least one place where Rand wrote “Only man is an end in himself.” That was in an Introduction written for a 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead. From the context, I gather that Rand was not here denying the end-in-itself character as it occurs in other living beings. The contrast class was something else here. The full paragraph is: “But neither politics nor ethics nor philosophy is an end in itself, neither in life nor in literature. Only Man is an end in himself.”
By the way, the statement “Man is an end in himself” was apparently a common saying, at least among literati, a long time before Rand. In his 1853 work The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality, Nicholas Chernyshevsky wrote: “Artistic form does not save a work of art from contempt or from a pitying smile if, by the importance of its idea, the work cannot answer the question: Was it worth the trouble? A useless thing has no right to respect. “Man is an end in himself”; but the things man makes must have their end in the satisfaction of man’s needs and not in themselves.”* The point I note here is how the author put our subject proposition in quotes, indicating that it was a common current saying that man is an end in himself.
She also said that only life is an end in itself
tadmjones,
As I understand the non dependency principle based on your explanations in posts 16, 18, 20 and 21, the principal states that part of man’s nature is that men exist as separate entities and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. Have I understood you correctly?
If so, I do not understand how the sacrificing of others violates your non dependency principle nor do I understand how your non dependency principle creates a prohibition against sacrificing others.
Let us assume that a man can exist as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. And a man does so. This man then chooses to sacrifice another man in some way for some reason, not because he has to sacrifice another to survive or exist but because he chooses to sacrifice another. How does this violate your non dependency principal? The man still exists as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. The man does not need to sacrifice another man in other to live as man qua man but nevertheless makes the choice to do so. There is no violation of your non dependency principal as the man is still a separate entity and his existence is not dependent on another man.
Can you provide a further explanation of why sacrifing others violates your non dependency principal and how your non dependency principal creates a prohibition against sacrificing others?
Additionally, how far does your non dependency principle extend? For example, does eating meat violate your non dependency principal and is therefore wrong? Man can live a long, healthy, and active life eating only fruits and vegetables. Man does not need to eat meat in order to live. Or to put another way, man exists as a separate entity and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of an animal, therefore, it is wrong for man to sacrifice animals to himself because it violates the non dependency principal. Would this be another example of a violation of your non dependency principal?
Craig24,
I do not understand from where the double standard you mention comes. You wrote, “… sacrificing THE OTHER to yourself prevents THE OTHER from living for his own sake.” This appears to be a factual statement and I agree with this statement.
As far as I can tell, the only way a double standard would come into play is if someone first stated that it is right for me to sacrifice you but it is wrong for you to sacrifice me (or something along those lines). If someone did make this type of statement, then I would agree with you that there is a double standard.
But that is not the case here. The quote from the original post says that “… man must live for his own sake…” and it appears that this is a statement of fact. Just as “… life is an end in itself…” and “… every human being is an end in himself…” appear to be statements of fact that are supported by arguments made earlier in the essay. A statement of fact does not, however, make, or imply, a judgment as to whether or not the fact is good or bad, right or wrong.
The introduction of what appears to be a prohibition against sacrificing others supposes a judgment of right or wrong and good and bad. A prohibition against sacrificing others implies that it is wrong to sacrifice others. Hence my questions of what is the basis for the prohibition against sacrificing others and why is it correct.
.
What do you think, TJ?
Care to share your views of the truth about self-interest and the rights of others?
Like if you were talking to persons, not prosecuting or beating someone up.
(Note: principle, not principal.)
tadmjones,
As I understand the non dependency principle based on your explanations in posts 16, 18, 20 and 21, the principal states that part of man’s nature is that men exist as separate entities and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. Have I understood you correctly?
If so, I do not understand how the sacrificing of others violates your non dependency principle nor do I understand how your non dependency principle creates a prohibition against sacrificing others.
Let us assume that a man can exist as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. And a man does so. This man then chooses to sacrifice another man in some way for some reason, not because he has to sacrifice another to survive or exist but because he chooses to sacrifice another. How does this violate your non dependency principal? The man still exists as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. The man does not need to sacrifice another man in other to live as man qua man but nevertheless makes the choice to do so. There is no violation of your non dependency principal as the man is still a separate entity and his existence is not dependent on another man.
Can you provide a further explanation of why sacrifing others violates your non dependency principal and how your non dependency principal creates a prohibition against sacrificing others?
Additionally, how far does your non dependency principle extend? For example, does eating meat violate your non dependency principal and is therefore wrong? Man can live a long, healthy, and active life eating only fruits and vegetables. Man does not need to eat meat in order to live. Or to put another way, man exists as a separate entity and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of an animal, therefore, it is wrong for man to sacrifice animals to himself because it violates the non dependency principal. Would this be another example of a violation of your non dependency principal?
In the context of an essay on O’ist ethics , the phrase man qua man means ’ man as is appropriate to be man, or man as per his nature’. Would you dispute the fact the men exist as separate entities? If not, then when deriving a set of principles to guide man’s actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity ‘man’.
You ask if a man ,existing as man qua man, can then sacrifice another without violating a principle that reflects man’s nature. I am not sure how to answer this. If you mean to ask why can’t a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual , I would say he can. Would that be moral, is what I would ask you.
Marc K,
Regarding post #30, my question is why is it wrong to sacrifice others based on an implied prohibition in the quote from the original post. You stated that the answer is logical consistency and then expressed astonishment that your answer is not enough for some people. Your answer is not clear to me and does not appear to answer the question of why it is wrong to sacrifice others so I continue to ask. Please explain how “logical consistency” answers my question.
You then ask if I have read “Atlas Shrugged.” Is the implication in your question that if I read “Atlas Shrugged” that my questions will be answered? If so, please reference the specific parts of the book that will clearly answer my question (if your inclination is to say “see Galt’s speech” or something similar, that is not specific enough so please provide specific paragraphs and lines).
You then state that I am being a bit hypocritical by saying that “one cannot make a definitive statement such as […]” and then following it up by saying “sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life”, which isn’t definitive at all." I do not understand why you would think that I am being hypocritical unless you think that I was stating or implying that one must always make definitive statements. I did not state that nor did I imply it. My statement from post 27 was, “One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” I made this statement in response to your post (#25) where you stated that Objectivist if/then statements contain an implied “If you want to live” statement. The statement I made is a true statement because one cannot make a definitive statement that if man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself. Perhaps it was the wording of my statement that is leading you to think that it is somehow hypocritical. I will restate it as, “One cannot make the definitive statement, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.”
You then state, “But even if all you mean is that sometimes sacrificing others will end your life and sometimes it won’t, well that should be enough not to do it right there.” I do not understand this statement. Is this the basis for ethics and morality, the idea that if something bad could happen to you as a result of your actions then you should not do it? Or did you mean something else?
As for the rest of post #30, as far as I can tell, the talk of virtues does not answer the question of why is it wrong to sacrifice others. If it does answer the question, please explain how.
Boydstun,
Regarding post #31, based on the logic that Ms. Rand presented in the essay, I agree with the concept that life is an end in itself and every living human being is an end in himself. Additional arguments such as your argument that man should be treated as an end in himself because his intelligence and psyche is organized towards being an individual dynamic whole, would, if true, serve to bolster the case for man being an end in himself. However, the fact that man is an end to himself does not answer the question of why it is wrong to sacrifice others.
As to your question in post #35, my views about self-interest and the rights of others are still being formed. The reason behind the question in the original post and the reason for every one of my subsequent posts has been the desire to learn. I am seeking knowledge and have no other motive.
TJ,
If justice is treating people as the kinds of beings they are, and they are ends in themselves in the human way, justice would include treating them as ends in themselves. At least that would be the just thing prima facie. Sacrifice of others and exploitation of others in the negative senses of those concepts would be inconsistent with treating them as ends in themselves, wouldn’t you think? Treating gasoline as water would be a performative inconsistency; that is the kind of inconsistency relevant to ethical theory. Do you think Rand’s arguments for the virtue of justice are wanting?
I am still learning and developing my views on some aspects of ethical theory as well (e.g. a, b, c).
I’d like to mention for everyone a couple of papers pertinent to the issues TJ has raised, essays now online:
Human Rights as Game Strategies
SB
A Perfectionist-Egoist Theory of the Good
Irfan Khawaja
tadmjones,
In regard to post #36, I do not dispute the fact that men exist as separate entities. That is a statement of fact just as each living entity exists as a separate entity whether it is a man, a lion, an ivy plant, or an amoeba.
You stated, “… when deriving a set of principles to guide man’s actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity ‘man’.”
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. If the set of principles that you are deriving to guide man’s actions are statements of fact, e.g. a man must consume nutrients in order to live, then I would agree with your statement since the principal could not be that a man must not consume nutrients in order to live as that would be contradictory to the identity of the entity of man.
But a statement of fact does not have an ethical implication, i.e. a statement of fact is neither good or evil it simply is. The fact that a man must consume nutrients in order to live, or a rose bush needs sunlight in order to live, or the sun rises in the East, is neither good nor evil, it just is.
It appears that you are implying that for principles to be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity ‘man’ that somehow this establishes an ethical implication and determines whether the principal is good or evil. How can this be possible?
The quote from the original post implies an ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man. But there appears to be no logical connection between the statements that man is living being, man is an end to himself, and a man must live for his own sake, which are all statements of fact and, therefore, ethically neutral, and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man.
It appears that you are attempting to establish a logical connection between the facts about man and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man when you stated, “…why can’t a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual…” You imply that by sacrificing another, a man will destroy his humanity and therefore it is wrong to sacrifice another. But what is the definition of humanity and how does one’s humanity get destroyed? If a man sacrifices another, the man is still a living being, is still an end to himself, and still must live for his own sake. The act of sacrificing another does not change any of these facts so how does the act of sacrificing another destroy his humanity? What is the logical connection between the statements of fact about man and the ethical position that it is wrong to sacrifice others?